You are here

The utility of makeup for women

Note how makeup and longer hair make the face look more feminine (look at the picture with either left- or right-half hidden). I got this image from a journal article but don’t recall which one.

Since makeup can make a face look more feminine, and femininity is a powerful correlate of women’s beauty, makeup is of great value in increasing the attractiveness of women. It cannot be simply argued that patriarchy makes women put on makeup when women use it to appear more feminine.

Make up affects more than mere attractiveness ratings:

A study by Nash et al.(1, pdf) – The study explored whether 4 Caucasian women would be evaluated differently on 4 social measures depending on whether they were presented with or without makeup. Participants – 152 men and 171 women – were split into 2 groups and were presented with the women’s facial photographs either with or without cosmetics. Women presented wearing cosmetics were perceived as healthier and more confident than when presented without. Participants also awarded women wearing makeup with a greater earning potential and with more prestigious jobs than the same women without cosmetics. The results suggest that women can successfully employ cosmetics to manipulate how they are assessed, which may be advantageous in social situations where women may be judged on their appearance, such as job interviews.

This should not be seen as patriarchy creating a social structure where people have a more favorable view of women with makeup, thereby forcing women to use makeup. If women are using makeup to appear more feminine and youthful, given a natural appreciation of youth, blemish-free skin and femininity in women, there will be a halo effect of attractiveness on other attributes.

Nash et al.’s results differ from a previous study by Kyle and Mahler,(2) which showed that the professional competence of makeup wearing women was rated lower and they were designated lower salaries by judges, but this was only shown for women applying for lower status professions such as secretarial positions. Kyle and Mahler explained their find by suggesting that the judges perceived women with makeup as more feminine and hence less assertive and less self-reliant. But there is a study that showed no effect of cosmetics on the perceived competence of women applying for prestigious positions such as accountancy,(3) and Nash et al. also cited a paper showing higher use of cosmetics by better educated professional white women in urban areas.(4) So cosmetics are of potential benefit in job interviews, especially since enhanced attractiveness increases the likelihood of favorable evaluations in job interviews, but there are surely right and wrong kinds of makeup for the workplace/job interviews, and I will likely have more to say on this later.

A common theme in women’s makeup is to make the eyes (eyelashes and eyelids) and lips darker than the surrounding regions. Russell(5, pdf) used a series of experiments to assess whether the luminosity (brightness) of the eyes and mouth contrasted with the luminosity of the surrounding regions is related to attractiveness ratings in white men and white women. He found that if the face was made brighter or darker as a whole, then attractiveness was unaffected, but making the eyes and mouth darker relative to the rest of the face tended to increase the attarctiveness ratings of women but decrease the attractiveness ratings of men.

The question is does this preference among the judges reflect the fact that women are much more likely to be seen with makeup than men and the difference perceived as feminine or does it reflect the fact that women tend to naturally have eye and mouth regions darker than the rest of the face, and if so then the makeup is simply increasing the sex difference in the direction of greater femininity? Russell cites literature showing that when men have used makeup, either in the present or past, they have rarely attempted to change the relative brightness of different parts of the face. There is a possibility that there is a natural sex difference regarding the relative luminosity of different parts of the face, but this requires further investigation.

Comments

Of COURSE women have to wear makeup because of social pressure. How you can get that this is anything other than socialized consciousness that women who are prettier and younger are better is beyond me. It's attitudes like this that drive women daily to get botox shots and face lifts. Women choose to wear makeup not because they enjoy wasting half an hour a day and untold amounts of money on that stuff but because it's *expected* of them. If it wasn't expected, they likely wouldn't do it. Goddess knows I avoid makeup at all costs. The only time I wear it is for interviews, because if I don't, no matter how qualified I am, I don't get callbacks. If I wear makeup, I get callbacks on almost all interviews. The only variable is makeup...hair, dress, everything else the same.

There is no external pressure coming from men for women to wear make-up. Women choose to wear make-up so that they can out-compete their female peers in the competition for male partners and male attention. Make-up elevates women's facial attractiveness giving them a competitive advantage.

Quote:

How you can get that this is anything other than socialized consciousness that women who are prettier and younger are better is beyond me.

How can you make this assertion without any evidence? There is a universal human preference for youth (look here for example). We are also programmed by our evolutionary past to follow the heuristic that unattractive things are are bad (look here and here for example).

There is no evidence that the hetersosexual male preference for young and pretty women is a social construction and there is ample evidence that this preference has a biological basis and is universal.

Quote:

It’s attitudes like this that drive women daily to get botox shots and face lifts. Women choose to wear makeup not because they enjoy wasting half an hour a day and untold amounts of money on that stuff but because it’s *expected* of them. If it wasn’t expected, they likely wouldn’t do it.

This is an elaborate self-deception. Women follow a mating strategy of hypergamy, i.e. they pursue those men with the highest social status and the best physical appearance. The emphasis on looks versus status shifts to some degree depending on whether the sought partner is short-term or long-term but nevertheless women are essentially hypergamic in their mating strategy. Given that there are many women competing for a comparatively small amount of preferred men, women will do what they can to increase their competitive advantage. Tactically this includes wearing make-up, hairstyling, fashion, plastic and cosmetic surgery, weight loss dieting, exercising and denigrating their competitiion. Once a long-term partner is found the strategy has the aim of mate retention
(look here for evidence).

Women do what they do to gain a competitive advantage over other women. The beauty industry is driven by women and their hypergamic mating strategy.

Quote:

Goddess knows I avoid makeup at all costs. The only time I wear it is for interviews, because if I don’t, no matter how qualified I am, I don’t get callbacks. If I wear makeup, I get callbacks on almost all interviews. The only variable is makeup...hair, dress, everything else the same.

Women have a cheap and easy way of improving their facial appearance via make-up. Men have no such option yet they too are also subjected to the universal, i.e. cross-cultural, preference for attractive faces and the halo effect (look here, here and,here)

Quote:

*rolls eyes* Wake up and smell the patriarchy, hon.

Patriarchy has nothing to do with it. Ugly men get a rougher deal than ugly women. Not only do ugly men have to contend with the halo effect, the high valuation of facial beauty in mate selection, the general preference for beauty over ugliness, the heuristic that ugly things are bad things -- just like ugly women do -- but men are also subjected to the hypergamic mating strategy of women. Further, ugly men also have to put up with the bullshit from misguided people like you crapping endlessly and at the slightest provocation about patriarchy and its evils and how hard women have it.

Regarding patriarchy, there never has been a matriarchal society in all of human history and no such thing is possible. Not even the smallest, most primitive forms of social organisation (eg. the late paleolithic age tribe) can survive such a social structure and this is because of the hypergamic mating strategy of women. Hypergamy -- unrestrained by culture or worse still encouraged by it -- leads to a social structure like that of elephant seals. That is to say, a polygynous culture in which only a minority of men ever find a mate, the majority of women compete for this minority of prized men and the prized men have multiple female partners. A successful society can't be built upon population in which a substantial proportion of men (or women)will have their basic (bilogical) needs unfulfilled.

You need to wake up and read more widely that popular feminist literature and Dianic tradition nonsense.

Peter Z sounds like a behavioral economist who seems to assign value to every human action. A few points -

1. Just because women do something, it does not imply that women have that innate character in them. You have apparently not lived as a woman since childhood to understand the social influences on women that result in the choices that women make as adults. In the absence of that social programming, the choices that women make are different.

2. Your statement "there never has been a matriarchal society in all of human history and no such thing is possible" is completely false. Even today, several matriarchial societies exist. For example - the Mosuo in China, the Spanish speaking areas of the Sahara, the state of Kerala in India, etc. In fact, these matriarchial societies tend to be the most progressive in the respective areas. In India, where the average literacy rate is 60%, the matriarchial society of Kerala has a 100% literacy rate.

3. You do not need to look at elephant seals. Look at your primate cousins - bonobos. Bonobos have a matriarchial society. They live a peaceful life. Chimpanzees are strictly patriarchial. The female chimpanzees are abused and raped every day, babies are killed, and chimpanzee society is several times more violent than human society.

My points have nothing to do with feminist writings. I am trying to tell you, and other readers (assuming you do not delete my post) that your post has a very narrow world view.

In human society, men and women are supposed to work together to make progress. As evidenced by the progress of societies in which women have a greater role (eg. western societies) and the lack of progress in societies in which women are subjugated (eg. many Islamic coutnries), the role of women is important. That is not to say that the role of men is unimportant. This is not a battle (unlike what some silly people refer to as the battle of the sexes). It is meant to be a collaborative effort. Without a collaborative effort by parents, human babies would have significantly reduced chance of survival. Chimpanzees rarely live up to age 40 in the wild. Humans only reach the half way point by age 40.

Please give up your battle against women. It is a meaningless struggle that only makes the human species worse off. You are playing a zero-sum game.

1. Just because women do something, it does not imply that women have that innate character in them. You have apparently not lived as a woman since childhood to understand the social influences on women that result in the choices that women make as adults. In the absence of that social programming, the choices that women make are different.

My argument doesn't rest on anecdote. I can cite published and peer-reviewed material on the short-term and longterm mating strategie of women. See here and here.

Your argument is solipsistic and self-defeating . Given that you haven't lived as anything but a women (and your argument rests on your authority qua woman) on what grounds can you assert that in "the absence of that social programming, the choices that women make are different". How do you know this?

You wrote,

Quote:

2. Your statement “there never has been a matriarchal society in all of human history and no such thing is possible” is completely false. Even today, several matriarchial societies exist. For example - the Mosuo in China, the Spanish speaking areas of the Sahara, the state of Kerala in India, etc. In fact, these matriarchial societies tend to be the most progressive in the respective areas. In India, where the average literacy rate is 60%, the matriarchial society of Kerala has a 100% literacy rate.

That is a load of bollocks. The consensus view amongst anthropologists and historians is that there never have been and aren't any purely matriarchal human societies. I suspect that you are confusing matrifocal societies with matriarchal societies. Please note that I am reporting the consensus view amongst specialists on this matter. There are some scholars that diagree but they are in the minority. The Encyclopedia Brittanica entry on "Matriarchy" summarises the state of scholarship on this topic and it reads

Quote:

The view of matriarchy as constituting a stage of cultural development is now generally discredited. Furthermore, the consensus among modern anthropologists and sociologists is that a strictly matriarchal society never existed.

You wrote,

Quote:

You do not need to look at elephant seals. Look at your primate cousins - bonobos. Bonobos have a matriarchial society. They live a peaceful life. Chimpanzees are strictly patriarchial. The female chimpanzees are abused and raped every day, babies are killed, and chimpanzee society is several times more violent than human society.

The point seems to have been lost upon you. I don't contend that there are no non-human matriarchal societies. Your bonobo example actually works against you in that bonobo females aren't hypergamic. Sex occurs throughout bonobo societies hence their is no need for the competition seen amongst male elephant seals. Also it's a myth that bonobos live peacefully, they are aggressive and violent only less so than their other primates (see here).

The point -- which I will re-iterate -- is that human females are hypergamic and any society that doesn't check, or worse encourages,this hypergamic tendency (whether it be matriarchal or otherwise) would soon come to ruin. It is hypothetically possible to construct a human matriarchal society in which womens hypergamic mating strategy is restrained but the biological basis of the hypergamic imperative makes such a society unlikely.

You wrote,

Quote:

My points have nothing to do with feminist writings. I am trying to tell you, and other readers (assuming you do not delete my post) that your post has a very narrow world view.

Your points have everything to do with feminist writings. In response to a scientific paper on the use of make-up by women you saw fit to spew feminist ideology. You are regurgitating feminist propaganda that has no basis in social or biological science nor even in the lived experience of average and "ugly" men.

You wrote,

Quote:

In human society, men and women are supposed to work together to make progress.

How did you arrive at this teleological conception of life? Is this a religious view?

Quote:

As evidenced by the progress of societies in which women have a greater role (eg. western societies) and the lack of progress in societies in which women are subjugated (eg. many Islamic coutnries), the role of women is important.

Using your own logic the advanced position of western societies has nothing to do with women. Some of the most significant advances in human knowledge and capacity came when women were "subjugated" as you put it. By your own lights all progress prior to first wave feminism should be attributed to men.

If the subjugation of women causes societies to fail to advance culturally and economically then how do you account for the ancient Greek and Roman Empires, ancient and modern China and Japan?

In any event, I'm not advocating the "subjugation" of women. Women should be allowed to gain an education and skills, work, vote, drive cars etc. What needs to be subjugated is the hypergamic behaviour of women.

Quote:

That is not to say that the role of men is unimportant. This is not a battle (unlike what some silly people refer to as the battle of the sexes). It is meant to be a collaborative effort. Without a collaborative effort by parents, human babies would have significantly reduced chance of survival.

Re-heated platitudes served up as profound insights into the human condition.

Quote:

Chimpanzees rarely live up to age 40 in the wild. Humans only reach the half way point by age 40.

Due to the hypergamic mating strategy of women there are many men that have never had a female partner and never will raise a family.

Patriarchy has nothing to do with it. Ugly men get a rougher deal than ugly women. Not only do ugly men have to contend with the halo effect, the high valuation of facial beauty in mate selection, the general preference for beauty over ugliness, the heuristic that ugly things are bad things—just like ugly women do—but men are also subjected to the hypergamic mating strategy of women. Further, ugly men also have to put up with the bullshit from misguided people like you crapping endlessly and at the slightest provocation about patriarchy and its evils and how hard women have it.

My reply:

Yeah...that's why Donald Trump and Bill Gates are so terribly unsuccessful, because they are unattractive.

And to tell you the truth, I read almost no feminist and Dianic tradition literature. I'm just smart enouth to be able to observe society and learn from it.

Yeah...that’s why Donald Trump and Bill Gates are so terribly unsuccessful, because they are unattractive.

Are you serious in using Donald Trump and Bill Gates as examples to attempt to substantiate your claim?

Firstly, the social success these two men have had (especially Trump with his serial mariages and most likely mistresses on the side) is attributable to their high socio-economic status. Bill Gates is the wealthiest person in the world. That these men have women is consistent with the hypergamic mating strategy of women.

Secondly, neither Donald Trump nor Bill Gates have ever had to climb a corporate ladder. Donald Trump inherited his wealth from his father Fred Trump and began his career at his father's company. Bill Gates is self-made (even though he came from a wealthy family), he has never been an employee. He founded Micro-soft -- as it was called back then -- when he was 20 years old. Bill Gates is extradordinarily intelligent and has entrepreneurial talent. Neither of these qualities are widely possessed in the general population let alone amongst physically unattractive men.

Donald Trump was quite handsome in his youth so in any event I don't think he is a good example to attempt to substantiate your point by any measure.

Bill Gates has succeeded despite his looks due to his extraordinary intellect and business acumen. I hazard a guess that prior to his financial success no woman would have even taken a second look at Bill Gates.

Your examples actually work against your own argument. Bill Gates and Donald Trump both demonstrate that (a) women pursue a hypergamic mating strategy; and (b) women will trade off social status against physical appearance and vice-versa.

Furthermore, I'm not contending that ugly men can't succeed in the corporate world. They can and they have (but Bill Gates and Donald Trump don't serve as examples of that because they never had to climb a corporate ladder) but they have done so against the odds and with great difficulty. The point is that ugly men have to contend against all of the adverse factors that ugly women also contend with plus they have to contend with the hypergamy of women. Thus ugly men have it generally more difficult than ugly women.

You wrote,

Quote:

And to tell you the truth, I read almost no feminist and Dianic tradition literature.

This is a disingenuous remark. To say that you read "almost" no such literature implies that you actually do read such literature. It takes some time for academic results to filter down to laymen (via popular books and the mass media) but I'll give you a head start. The central pillars of radical feminist thought, i.e. those regarding human nature and relying on social constructivism (the radical feminist critique of essentialism), have been discredited. The account of history that the Dianic tradition relies upon has also been discredited as pseudohistory. There never have been matriarchal socities. Do yourself and me a favour and don't just quote me some partisan source or minority scholarly opinion or even worse some screed on the WWW. If you are genuinely interested in the truth -- as opposed to adopting some self-serving ideology -- you will seek out the consensus opinion from scholars on these topics.

You wrote,

Quote:

I’m just smart enouth to be able to observe society and learn from it.

You aren't observing society nor learning from it. This is evinced by your ill-chosen examples in Bill Gates and Donald Trump (as is if their biographies bear any resemblance to the majority of men) and by your attribution of female make-up use to patriarchy. You are an ideologue, a simple part-time idelogue but an ideologue nevertheless. You have an ideology which is misandric in essence, pseudoscientific, pseudohistorical and conspiratorial and you perceive and evaluate everything through this ideological filter. That is why you can cite Bill Gates and Donald Trump as counter-examples and react with self-righteous moral indignation to a scientific article on make-up use without any hint of dissonance. Only ideology can spawn this sort of self-certitude and tunnel vision. Re-read your original post. Notice that you aren't actually addressing the (published and peer-reviewed) journal article nor are you presenting an argument or any contradictory evidence. You are merely posting some tired radical feminist ideological ramblings about patriarchy (which have been reduce to slogans) and are buttressing this ideological spiel with a personal anecdote about your interview experience (as if that establishes your point beyond question). This suggests that you haven't actually read the paper, that you have but didn't understand its significance or that you don't actually think about these matter at all but instead have a personal script that you resort to when your ideological preconceptions are challenged.

Jodith, my dear, I do not know if you have been living under a rock. Apparently, you have not noticed that there are a lot of women who wear makeup not because they are pressured to or men force them, but because they LOVE wearing makeup and they want to look more attractive. And they actually WANT to look attractive for the men, too. Nobody's telling them that they're going to burn in hell if they do not wear makeup.

Without speaking for Jodith, she might answer that that is the outcome of the social programming women undergo: they like wearing make-up and appearing more attractive to men and because they are programmed to; that they appear to enjoy doing so is simply more evidence of the pernicious programming pervading their lives.

I'm not familiar with the inner workings of feminist logic, but it seems that they believe that in the absence of social programming women might undertake any course of action save that wich they do in today's programmed society, ie, they might do anything except: attempt to make themselves look more attractive to men; seek a mate for life; contemplate the qualities such a man might possess; dream about a life with such a man; and plan their activities around bringing such a life into fruition.

I believe that any girl or women can make themselves look even more feminine. It’s quite amazing what you can do with some hair, make-up and nice clothes. Of course not every girl need make-up to look pretty but make-up really brings out the feminine side in a woman.